Wednesday, January 02, 2013

Oh Noes, god can not be!

I have heard claims from the theist side that god is omnipresent. Is that a popular concept? If god is everywhere he must be in every atom of the devil, every component that makes up the devil including his thoughts. Does that mean god is the devil? Would it be safe to assume that disproving an omnipresent claim would prove the non-existance of a god? If by definition, god is everywhere and you show he is not somewhere, then the claim at least is no longer valid.

Clearly a graduate summa cum laude of the Coyne Theological Seminary.

This argument (which is then taken seriously by the commentators) represents the state-of-the-art in modern atheism.

The A+ crowd starts by following Dawkins' cue of championing a deficit of knowledge. (From the good ole Dawkins, of course, before he became a "Dear Muslima" sexist, misogynist, rape-apologist MRA --right up there with Michael Shermer.) That is, A+ continues the gnu atheist policy whereby it is preferred that you not know, even at a rudimentary level, the topic you are criticizing. They continue the tradition of making ignorance a virtue. They are like the repulsive humanities professor who literally brags about not knowing any math or science.

But A+ has one-upped gnu atheism by introducing internecine warfare and giving a hearty approval to purging, shaming and shunning their fellow slightly-deviating-from-the-party-line atheists. All while reducing, if you can imagine that it is possible, intellectual rigor.

The goals of A+ are understandable from the perspective of atheists who want to create an atheist-inspired movement that includes social activism. But, thanks to the poor leadership of people like PZ and Ophelia Benson--they could not have crafted a more divisive, amateurish, self-destructive, dogmatic, John-Birch-like implementation.